On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-16#feature
Assuming arguendo that Shankman is entirely right, this doesn't seem to address the main point. According to Shankman's own account, Freeman's book about how Mead got Samoa entirely wrong was written in 1983 with no reliance on this testimony which was first taken in 1987. The testimony was used in support of a secondary argument: explaining how she could have gotten it so wrong. Accepting arguendo that this latter argument has been entirely demolished, AFAICT it has no bearing on the much more important argument that she was dead wrong about Samoan adolescent behavior. It simply leaves us wondering why.
This is not to say that the argument of the earlier book might not also be wrong. But this doesn't touch it. Does Shankman analyze that book somewhere else?
By itself, this is an interesting bit, but a vindication it is not.
Mind you, I'm perfectly happy to have her vindicated, and if someone's done it, point me to it. Or if anyone has personally read Freeman's 1983 book and thinks its weaknesses are glaring and obvious, I'd be interested in that too.
Michael